United States v. Turner ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7342
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NICHOLAS ERIC TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-02-79; CA-03-993-1)
Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas Eric Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Eric Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge
and denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) in which
he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a
direct appeal. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Turner, No.
CR-02-79 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2004).
Turner asserted two additional claims for the first time
in his appeal to this court: (1) he does not meet the enhancement
requirements necessary to be labeled an armed criminal under 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000); and (2) an amendment to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines changed the rules allowing
enhancements under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(c) (2000). Because
neither claim was raised in the district court, Turner may not
raise them now on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246,
250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss as to those claims as well.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -